• mim@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m just gonna sit back and enjoy the tankies from lemmygrad denying or trying to justify this one as well. 🍿

      • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Imagine defending Russian and Chinese imperialism because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

        • ☭ Blursty ☭@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Neither China not Russia are imperialist. China is a socialist state so by definition cannot be and Russia is an immature industrial capitalist state.

          • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Imagine thinking Chinese workers own the means of production, or not even knowing where the term “tankie” comes from.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The term tankie comes from the 1956 hungarian revolution/counter-revoluton (depending on who you ask) which split the British communist party, those that supported the Soviet Union suppressing it with the military were called tankies.

              The video of the man in front of the tank column related to the June 4th incident did not result in the man standing in front of the tank dying, and those tanks were leaving the area where the violence occurred and is not where the word tankie comes from like I believe you are suggesting.

              • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No, I was suggesting that tankie came to describe USSR supporters (which modern apologists project onto Russia, as if the wall never fell). I am aware of the origin of the term.

                My comment was a reply on people supporting whatever Russia and China do. It takes a jab at both.

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  No, I was suggesting that tankie came to describe USSR supporters

                  No, it started that way? Do you mean started to be more all encompassing? I literally explained the origin of the term one comment ago. Also, I dont see how this

                  " Imagine thinking Chinese workers own the means of production, or not even knowing where the term “tankie” comes from. "

                  -can mean what you say you meant.

                  (which modern apologists project onto Russia, as if the wall never fell).

                  Anyone who has researched the USSR enough to cut through capitalist propaganda knows Russia is now a neolib-ish bourgeois democracy.

                  • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    No, it started that way? Do you mean started to be more all encompassing?

                    So, didn’t the term come to describe people who support the USSR imperialist practices by rolling into countries with tanks?

                    Anyone who has researched the USSR enough to cut through capitalist propaganda knows Russia is now a neolib-ish bourgeois democracy.

                    Have you ever seen anything written by the average lemmy tankie? They will defend Russia because it’s not the US.

                    If the US invades a middle eastern country because of “terrorists”, the true motive is oil (which I don’t disagree with). But if Russia invades Ukraine because they could potentially become a competitor petrol state in Europe more aligned with the EU, then it’s actually “nazis”.

          • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            China is a socialist state so by definition cannot be

            Can you elaborate on that? I agree that China is not imperialist, but I don’t see how socialism by definition precludes that possibility.

            • ☭ Blursty ☭@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Imperialism is the final stage of capitalism. Finance capitalism takes over from industrial capitalism and seeks out markets abroad, having exhausted the internal ones. It teams up with other finance capitalism to become a global force, the export of capital becomes the most prominent feature of the economy rather than the export of raw materials or finished goods. The states they come from tend to become fascist in nature, or as some people put it, “fascism is imperialism turned inward”.

              Even if China was a capitalist country as some people claim, it still wouldn’t be at that stage yet. Russia might wish to one day be there, but it too has a long way to go.

              • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You didn’t answer what I asked.

                You said that capitalism by definition leads to imperialism. I asked how socialism by definition precludes imperialism.

                  • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I don’t see how that follows.

                    Because you need to get to imperialism via capitalism.

                    Socialism’s goal is to provide for its people; in theory, why can’t it engage in colonialism to bring in resources to benefit its people?

                    There is definitely no other way.

                    Its obvious how capitalism leads to imperialism, but it’s definitely not obvious how that would be the only way to arrive there.

                    Any elaboration you can provide would be great because you’re acting as if it should be obvious why what you’re saying is true but it absolutely is not.

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I would suggest reading “Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism”

                  Imperialism has a highly specific definition.

                  • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Thank you, I’ll look at that. It might be my misunderstanding of a technical term, but I don’t see the logical sequence that makes it apparent that socialist countries can’t engage in imperialism/colonialism.